Pa Jeremiah Benjamin Hunsonnu & Anor V. Mr. Aina Denapo (2007)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

PAUL ADAMU GALINJE, J.C.A.

The Appellants herein who were the Plaintiffs at the High Court of Lagos State claimed against the Respondent in their further Amended Statement of Claim filed on the 24th June 2004 (see pages 66-69 of the record of this appeal) for declaration of title, damages for trespass and injunction over a parcel of land situate and lying at Ithazi along Abia – N. I. F. O. R/DlFFRI road, Igborosun in Badagary Local Government Area of Lagos State.

By a statement of defence dated 11th April 2002 and filed on the 13th January 2003, the Respondent herein, who was the Defendant at the lower court set up a counterclaim for declaration of title, forfeiture of customary grant, injunction, damages for trespass and damages for libel and slander against the Appellants.

A reply to the counterclaim of the Respondent was dated and filed on the 29th of March 2000.

Issues having been joined, the matter proceeded to trial. At the end of the trial and in a considered judgment, the learned trial Judge, Abiru J. dismissed the claims of both the Appellants and the Respondent in their entirety.

Being dissatisfied and aggrieved with the judgment, the Appellants have brought this appeal. Their notice of appeal dated 13th December 2004 and filed on the 16th December 2004 contains nine grounds of appeal.

The facts of this case according to the Appellants is that their ancestor, Late Hunzonnu founded the disputed land which forms part of a large tract of land from time immemorial and used same for hunting and farming. After the death of Hunzonnu, the disputed piece of and revolved through Hunsu Jobe, Zannu, Benjamin who are children of Hunzonnu to Gweloku and Jeremiah the 1st Appellant. Since the Appellants inherited the land, they have since exercised various acts of possession and ownership on their land which includes planting and harvesting crops and other farm products without any disturbance from anybody. It is also the Appellants case that when Lagos State Government acquired part of their land, they were paid compensation.

The Appellants’ further case is that they continued to enjoy peaceful occupation of their land until in 1997 when the Respondent was found in company of prospective buyer near the land in dispute and this fact got to the knowledge of the Oba of Ilogbo who intervened and granted part of the land to the Respondent an action which they rejected in writing, but the Respondent vowed to covet the land and has in fact negotiated with an owner of a dredging out fit to excavate sand from the said land and has prevented the Appellants from carrying out perimeter survey of the land.

The Respondent set up an entirely different set of facts in his pleadings. According to him, his ancestor Derin was the founder and first settler of Abia Village where the disputed land lies. He traced the genealogy of Derin to himself and insisted that the land in dispute is at Abia village and belongs rightfully to the Abia people. The Respondent pointed out in his pleadings that the Plaintiffs hail from lgborosun village not from Abia village and have no land in Abia. Finally, the Respondent pleaded that the averment in paragraph 10 of the statement of claim in their ordinary meaning meant and were understood to mean that the Respondent is a person of no virtue, gangster and villain and this has greatly injured his credit, character and reputation and his reputation has been brought into hatred, ridicule and contempt.

Paragraph 10 of the statement of claim reads as follows: –

“The plaintiffs aver that the Defendant a returnee from the Motor Parks as a tout started to be disturbing the plaintiffs on their land very recently precisely sometime this year i.e. 1997 when he was found in company of a prospective buyer near the land in dispute.”

From the nine grounds of appeal, the Appellants formulated live issues for the determination of this appeal at paragraph 4.0, pages 3-4 of the Appellants brief of argument. These issues without their particulars are reproduced hereunder as follows: –

I. Whether the learned trial Judge was right when he held that the Appellants did not file a composite plan and have thus failed to establish the identity of the land in dispute.

2. Whether the learned trial Judge was right in holding that the traditional history of the Appellants was inconclusive.

If answered in affirmative